[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Home]
Re: Philosophy general debate
Sorry to butt in, but regards your (tangential) point, but to rush to AG's defence I don't think he was begging the question. What you (Daniel) said (or said on D's behalf) is akin to saying "no tree is a plant," an objector finding an oak, and saying that "well, here is a tree, and it is a plant," only to be rebuffed with "well, since it's a plant it can't have been a tree, can it?" This would then make all claims non-disprovable. So, if it is begging the question, it is not vicious. If it is antecedently and (fairly) uncontroversially philosophy (say, Descartes) and it is not saddening, that is sufficient to disprove D's proposition, I would have thought. M.
On 22 Aug 2006 20:49:59 +0100, djf500@york.ac.uk <djf500@york.ac.uk> wrote:
To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org
Hi,
I need to restate what I meant following AG's reply to my earlier heckling!
AG's final point first...
I didn't suggest that if you were I case that fitted D's principle (i.e.
read D's books and got a tad morose) then that would prove his principle. I
simply said that to remove the principle you can't simply beg the question
(implicitly or explicitly, see Wright, 2000 in Sosa and Villanuenva [sorry,
not spanish or working from the book!]). You do have to go behind his
principle, as it were.
Now the next bit...
I'm aware that if something is the same proposition, then clothing it in
different language (i.e. types or tokens, as it were) fails to alter it's
truth conditions (it does alter its doxastic conditions - I don't know what
the hell M-Ponty is on about most of the time, even if it's all true). That
does not come to bear on my point. My point was (and perhaps I didn't
explain it well) that charity is required to discover the actual
proposition at the middle of all of the purple prose. What M-P and that lot
(including D) say is very difficult, and does not make use of familiar
notions, and so we have to refuse to take what they say on face value in
order to under *what they really mean* and then judge *that* proposition.
I hope that makes sense.
Cheers,
Daniel.
Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at:
http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml